If(x) - q.(x) I < f(x) - p.(x) I on E where f(x) - p. ., x) are independent.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "If(x) - q.(x) I < f(x) - p.(x) I on E where f(x) - p. ., x) are independent."

Ann McCoy
6 years ago
Views:

VOL. 45, 1959 MATHEMATICS: WALSH AND MOTZKIN 1523 consider the ideal generated by dga duel. i Eua...i.,,xj 0 < m < to Eduq.. AujAdm in the ring of all differential forms. This ideal is the system (G).

1 VOL. 45, 1959 MATHEMATICS: WALSH AND MOTZKIN 1523 consider the ideal generated by dga duel. i Eua...i.,,xj 0 < m < to Eduq.. AujAdm in the ring of all differential forms. This ideal is the system (G). If Xi,..., X,, are independent vectors tangent to E at some given point e, a p plane (e, Xi,..., X4) is said to be integral if (i) e satisfies the equations G" = 0. (ii) Each vector Xi annihilates the one forms of (G). (iii) Each pair (Xi, Xj) annihilates the two forms of (G). Let Is' denote the set of all integral p planes on which p of the variables (xl,., x) are independent. The polar equations of a p plane (e, X1,..., X,) are the linear equations which express the condition that a vector Y at e shall generate with Xi,..., X, an integral plane of (G). The system (G) will be said to be globally in involution2 if the rank of the polar system is constant over I1P for each p, 0 < p < n. THEOREM. If the system (F) of partial differential equations is elliptic, then the associated exterior differential system (G) is globally in involution. By a remark of M. Hausner and Sternberg (unpublished) the second order parabolic, hyperbolic, and ultrahyperbolic equations all give rise to exterior systems which are not in involution. Hence, one is led to conjecture some sort of equivalence between the notions of ellipticity and involution. * This work was supported in part by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research Contract No. AF 49(638) Douglis, A., and L. Nirenberg, "Interior Estimates for Elliptic Systems of Partial Differential Equations," Comm. Ture Appl. Math., 8, (1955). I This is a global form of the notion of involution defined in Cartain, Les systcmes diffirentielles extirieures et leurs applications geometriques (Paris: Hermann, 1945). POLYNOMIALS OF BEST APPROXIMATION ON AN INTERVAL* BY J. L. WALSH AND T. S. MOTZKIN HARVARD UNIVERSITY AND UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Communicated July 20, 1959 The present writers have recently" 2 studied juxtapolynomials and their relation to polynomials of best approximation to a given function on a real finite point set, especially with reference to oscillation properties. The object of the present note is to indicate, partly without proof, new results on the analogous problems of approximation to a given continuous function on a closed finite interval E. Let the function f(x) be continuous on E. The polynomial q,,(x) = boxn + b x1n b. of degree n is said to be a closer polynomial tof(x) one than the polynomial p,,(x) = aox" + aix"-' an of degree n provided qn(x) 0 pn(x) and provided (x) $0, (1) If(x) - q.(x) I < f(x) - p.(x) I on E where f(x) - p

2 1524 MA THEMA TIC(IS: WALSH AND AMOTZKIN PROC. N. A. S. f(x) - qn(x) = f(x) - pn(x) on E where f(x) - Pn(x) = 0. (2) If no closer polynomial an(x) exists, p.(x) is a juxtapolynomial to f(x) on E. A polynomial pn(x) of best approximation of f(x) on E in the sense that (among all polynomials of given degree n) it minimizes either of the deviations feif(x) - pn(x) Pdx, p > O (3) max [ f(x) - pn(x) x on E], (4) is clearly a juxtapolynomial to f(x) on E of degree n. Let the function sp(x) be continuous on E with <p(xo) = 0, and let N be the largest integer for which with some 6(> 0) and some A(> 0) we have 1 (() S,< A < co 0 < IX - X0 < 6, x on E; (5) IT - XoI X I we say that so(x) has a zero of lower order or multiplicity X at x = xo. If (5) is valid for no positive integer, we set X = 0; if (5) is valid for all positive integers we set X = co. We establish LEMMA 1. If f(x) is continuous on the closed finite interval E, and if qn(x) is a closer polynomial (of degree n) to f(x) on E than Pn(X), then Pn(X) - qn(x) has a zero of order at least X wherever f(x) -pn(x) has a zero of lower order X on E. By (1), (2), and (5) we have in some neighborhood of any zero xo of f -Pn on E Pn - godi < If - qni + If - Pn < 21f - Pn < 2A~x -xo" which implies the conclusion. We can state at once THEOREM 1. If f(x) and E satisfy the conditions of Lemma 1, and if Pn(X) is a polynomial of degree n such that f(x) - pn(x) has zeros of total lower multiplicity greater than n on E, then pn(x) is a juxtapolynomial to f(x) on E. Indeed, if qn(x) is a closer polynomial to f(x) on E than Pn(X), it follows from Lemma 1 that pn(x) - qn(x) has zeros of total order at least n + 1 on E, so qn(x) = pn(x) If the function So(x) is continuous on the interval E with (p(xo) = 0, and if,u is the smallest integer for which we have with some 6(> 0) and some m m(p(x)*(x-x0)m>0, 0< Ix-xo < 6, xone, (6) JP(x)I > Im(x-xo)M > 0, 0 < Ix-xoX < a, xone, (7) we say that (p(x) has a zero of upper order or multiplicity p at x = xo. If no finite p exists (e.g., if xo is not an isolated zero of po(x)) we set,u = ao. As an illustration of upper order, we note that the function so(x) = x has a zero of upper order two at x = 0. The definition of upper order requires that ((x) and m(x - xo)" have the same algebraic sign in 0 < x - xoi <6. An immediate consequence of (6) and (7) is jp(x) - m(x - Xo)l < (x), 0< Ix - Xo <6, x one. (8) We remark that for a zero of any function <z(x), there is valid the inequality lower order X < upper order p. (9)

3 VOL, 45, 19)59 IA THEMA TICS: WALSH AND MOTZKIN 1525 Indeed we have from (7) P(x)/(x - xo)p+1i > m/(x - xo)j, so I((x)/(x - xo)m+' < A is impossible. Then by (5) we have X < ii + 1, which is (9). In view of (9), a strengthening of Lemma 1 is LEMMA 2. If f(x) is continuous on the closed finite interval E, and if qn(x) is a closer polynomial (of degree n) to f(x) on E than pn(x), then pn(x) - qn(x) has a zero of order at least At wherever f(x) - pn(rx) has a zero of upper order /A on E. Inequalities (1) and (2) imply for each x on E that unlessf(x) = pn(x) = qn(x), the value f(x) is nearer to qn(x) than to pn(x), so If(x) - Pn(x) > qn() -Ap(x) /2, and f(x) -pn(x) has the same algebraic sign as qn(x) - pn(x). Lemma 2 follows now by (6) and (7). Concerning upper multiplicity we prove a stronger result than Theorem 1: THEOREM 2. A necessary and sufficient condition that the polynomial pn(x) of degree n be a juxtapolynomial to the continuous function f(x) on the interval E is that -() f(x) -pn(x) have on E zeros of total upper multiplicity greater than n. As Theorem 1 follows from Lemma 1, the sufficiency of the condition here follows from Lemma 2. Conversely, if this condition is not satisfied, there exists a polynomial qn(x) of degree n, having zeros of total multiplicity not greater than n, which on E has the same algebraic sign as ep(x), and which has at each zero of sp(x) on E a zero whose multiplicity is the upper multiplicity of the zero of p(x). Indeed, if qn(x) has the same zeros on E as se(x) and with the same upper multiplicities, either qn(x) or -nq' (x)i satisfies the requirements. For sufficiently small e (> 0) we have (compare (8)) p(x) - eqn(x) < C(X) (10) in each of mutually disjoint neighborhoods 0 A(> O', sig qn(x) = sig so(x), so (10) is also valid for sufficiently small e, and Pn(X) is not a juxtapolynomial to f(x) on E. Theorem 2 is established. Theorems 1 and 2 clearly apply to the polynomials of given degree which minimize the deviations (3) and (4). If f(x) is itself a polynomial or other function of class C' of the real variable x on E, upper and lower order are identical with the usual order of a zero, so a necessary and sufficient condition that a polynomial pn(x) of degree n be a juxtapolynomial to f(x) on E is that f(x) - Pn(x) have one zeros of total order greater than n. We turn now to the oscillation properties of polynomials which minimize the deviation (3); here the value of p has considerable influence. Jackson has proved3 THEOREM 3. If the function f(x) is continuous on the closed bounded interval E, the polynomial Pn(X) of degree n which minimizes (3) with p > 1 is either identical to f(x) on E or is such thotf(x) -pn(x) has at least n + 1 strong sign. changes on E. We omit the proof, which is similar to that of Theorem 4 below. Here the term n + 1 (strong) sign changes of a function jc(x) on E indicates that there exist n + 2 points Xk of E such that (x < x2 <...) either So(XI) > 0, SO(X2) < O SO(XJ) > 0,...,

4 1526 MATHEMATICS: WALSH AND MOTZKIN PROC. N. A. S. or the reverse inequalities hold. However, sp(x) has n + 1 weak sign changes on E if for the same points Xk we have either (0 (XI) > O. (P(X2) < O. (P(X3) > On-.. or the reverse inequalities. Jackson has established4 too THEOREM 4. If f(x) is continuous on the interval E: 0 < x < 1, and if Pn(X) is a polynomial of degree n which minimizes (3) with p = 1, then f(x) -pn(x) either has a total of at least n + 1 strong sign changes on E or vanishes identically on a subset of E of positive measure. If Theorem 4 is false, there exists a polynomial q.(x) which vanishes in the strong sign changes of f(x) -pn(x) and only there on E, and where different from zero on E has weakly the same algebraic sign as f(x) - pn(x). We shall study f(x) - Pn(X) - eqn(x), E > 0, as comparison function. Thanks to the continuity of f(x) and pn(x), we may write (5> 0) meas [If-Pn < 5] -0 as 6 0; (11) of course only points of E are included in this notation. E on which on E - E, we have If El denotes the subset of I.nl' If - PnIX (12) If-Pnl < EnJ < EM, (13) where qn(x) < M on E. By (11) there follows q= ) =meas [E - E1] 0 as e On E -E we deduce from (13) If- Pn -Eq < teqn fqnfdqed- M, felf - PnIdx - felf - pn - Eqnjdx > EfEIqnIdx - 2EnM; (15) the last member is positive for sufficiently small E, in contradiction to the extremal property of pn(w). This contradiction completes the proof. Jackson has also proved4 THEOREM 5. Under the conditions of Theorem 4 the extremal polynomial pn(x) is unique. We suppose there exist two distinct extremal polynomials pn(x) and qn(x), and shall reach a contradiction. We remark that the algebraic inequality f- N - < 2If-PnI + If qni i (16) 2 ~

VOL. 45, 1959 MATHEMATICS: WALSH AND MOTZKIN 1527 valid for all values of the arguments, together with the strong inequality f _ Pn + Qn < If - pn + 2If - qnl, valid if f lies between Pn and qn, and

5 VOL. 45, 1959 MATHEMATICS: WALSH AND MOTZKIN 1527 valid for all values of the arguments, together with the strong inequality f _ Pn + Qn < If - pn + 2If - qnl, valid if f lies between Pn and qn, and where of course rn (Pn + qn)/2 is a competing polynomial of degree n, shows that f cannot lie between pn and qn at even a single point of E, since the functions involved are continuous. The polynomial rn is extremal, by (16), and by Theorem 4 the function f -r must have at least n + 1 distinct weak sign changes, at each of which (by the remark already made) we have f - = f - qn = 0. Thus pn(x) - qn(x) has at least n + 1 distinct zeros and vanishes identically. The present proof of Theorem 5, including Theorem 4, is much simpler and shorter than that of Jackson. In the whole class of polynomials Qk(X) of degree k (with Qk(X) 0) there exists at least one element for which the ratio fo' Qk(X) dx/max [I Qk(X) Ion El (17) has a minimum value Pk, as follows easily by the Montel theory of normal families of functions. With this notation, Theorem 4 can be sharpened as follows: THEOREM 6. Under the hypothesis of Theorem 4, if f(x) - pn(x) has preci.?ely k(< n + 1) strong sign changes on E, it must vanish identically on a subset of E of measure > Pk/2. The proof of Theorem 6 is a modification of that of Theorem 4, where we now define a polynomial qk(x) of degree k which vanishes in the strong sign changes of f - Pn on E, and only then on E, and where different from zero on E has weakly the same algebraic sign as f -Pn. If we set,u = meas [If - P = 0], relation (11) is to be replaced by meas [If-PnI < al asi--0, (18) and we have also r(e) -e,u as e 0. Inequality (15) now follows as before, with qn replaced by qk, and contradicts the extremality of pn(x) unless we have fe qkldx - 2pM < 0, > Pk/2. The constant Pk can be determined in simple cases; we have Po = 1, Pi = 2/2-1. Jackson, in his proof of Theorem 4, asserts4 the existence of a positive number which if f(x) does not have n + 1 strong sign changes must be exceeded by meas[f - pn = 0], but does not define the constant (here pn/2) nor does he indicate the dependence of the constant on k if (as in Theorem 6) the number of strong sign changes of f(x) - pn(x) is k(< n + 1). Jackson also states4 that f(x) - Pn(X) must vanish identically on a set of intervals the sum of whose lengths is greater than some positive constant m. This is not correct, as is indicated by the following counterexample. Let Eo be a closed proper subset of E: 0 < x < 1 of measure greater than one-half which contains no interval; for example Eo may be a suitably chosen Cantor set. The function f(x) defined as the distance from x to Eo is nonnegative throughout E and zero on E. For n = 0 the polynomial po(x) = 0 is extremal, as may be seen from the forward derivative d X f(i ) - cjdx = meas f(x) < c- meas rf(x) > c], (19) which is positive for 0 < c < max f(x).

6 1528 MATHEMATICS: J. L. WALSH PROC. N. A. S. We postpone to another occasion the proof of THEOREM 7. Let the function f(x) be of class CO on a closed bounded interval E, and let pn(x) (0 f (x) on E) be a polynomial of degree n which for some p, 0 f(1 - p) Kj] and which for zeros interior to E is also of the same parity as Kp. Then we have 2Kj* > n. (20) As an illustration here, suppose all Kj are unity; at each end point of E we have K* = 0, so (20) is precisely the condition that the number of strong sign-changes of f -p be greater than n. The conditions developed in Theorems 3, 6, and 7 are necessary but in the judgment of the writers (which is still to be confirmed) are close to sufficient. There are numerous differences between approximation (i) on a closed bounded interval E andl'2 (ii) on a real finite set Em. In (ii) every juxtapolynomial is extremal with p = 1 and suitable weight function, but not in (i), as is shown by the example f(x) = X2, n = 0, E: 0 < x < 1; compare (19). In (i) the conditions derived become progressively stronger for juxtapolynomials and extremal polynomials with increasing p, namely 0 1; in (ii) (for suitable weight function) the conditions are weakest for p = 1, stronger for 0 1. In (ii) the conditions are independent of p, 0 < p < 1, but not in (i). In (i) the extremal polynomial for p = 1 is unique, but not necessarily in (ii). The present writers plan to continue this study, by considering further both necessary and sufficient conditions for best approximation to functions not necessarily continuous, using weight functions and more general real point sets. * Research supported (in part) by the Office of Naval Research, U.S. Navy, and by the Office of Scientific Research, Air Research and Development Command. Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. 1 Motzkin, T. S., and J. L. Walsh, these PROCEEDINGS, 43, (1957). 2Ibid., Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 91, (1959). 3Jackson, D., Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 22, (1921). 'Jackson, D., Ibid., (1921). NOTE ON INVARIANCE OF DEGREE OF POLYNOMIAL AND TRIGONOMETRIC APPROXIMATION UNDER CHANGE OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLE* BY J. L. WALSH HARVARD UNIVERSITY Communicated August 24, 1965 The object of this note is to show that various commonly used measures of degree of approximation are invariant under one-to-one analytic transformation of the independent variable, and this is true for both approximation by polynomials in the complex variable and trigonometric approximation in the real variable.

AxiOM F. If P is a point of a region R and X is a point distinct from P. THEOREM 2. If, in a space satisfying Axioms 0, 1 and 2, the boundary

AxiOM F. If P is a point of a region R and X is a point distinct from P. THEOREM 2. If, in a space satisfying Axioms 0, 1 and 2, the boundary 648 MA THEMA TICS: R. L. MOORE PROC. N. A. S. CONCERNING A CCESSIBILITY BY R. L. MooRE DEPARTMENT OF PURE MATHEMATICS, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS Communicated November 13, 1939 The following theorem may be easily